1. An Introduction to Radiometry: Taking Measurements, Getting Closure, and Data Applications Part I: Guide to Radiometric Measurements (See Video)

2. An Introduction to Radiometry: Taking Measurements, Getting Closure, and Data Applications Part II: Data Processing and Analysis (See animation)

3. An Introduction to Radiometry: Taking Measurements, Getting Closure, and Data Applications Part III: Closure and Application (This powerpoint)

4. Dock Test, 07-27-13 The dock test is made on stable platform, and every measurements were strictly following protocols. Therefore, this dock test measurements are considered to be accurate.

5. Dock Test, 07-27-13

6. Derived ratios between HyperPro and HyperSAS and between WISP and HyperSAS for each measured radiometric quantities. This shows ratios for Ed sensor.

7. WISP and HyperPro ‘Transformation’ to HyperSAS for inter-instrumental comparison Assumed Dock Test was the most ‘ideal’ control conditions Assumed HyperSAS was accurate enough to be the ‘right’ system Used Dock Test spectra for SAS, Pro, and WISP to get ratios Pro/SAS and WISP/SAS for all wavelengths (3 nm bins) Applied Dock Test ratios to transform cruise data Assumed ρ sky = 0.028

8. Cruise 1: River Station

11. Before transformation

12. After transformation

14. Three Lw’s can match if we use ρ sky =0.021 instead of 0.028. Therefore, this means we overcorrected sky radiance initially (?).

15. Three Rrs’s can match if we use ρ sky =0.021 instead of 0.028. Therefore, this means we overcorrected sky radiance initially (?).

16. Cruise 1: Ocean Station

21. How do these comparisons suggest? All three instruments work better under stable conditions. Especially, the two above-water instruments, HyperSAS and WISP may not ideal for wavy ocean surface. Under stable condition, the offsets among instruments seem relatively constant. This may due to different calibration methods using for these instruments. Therefore, derived Rrs, that Lw over Ed, is more reliable and comparable, but individual radiance and irradiance by a single instrument may not be trustable without providing sufficient calibration information.

22. Inversion Application Example Using algorithm developed by Li et al. (2013, RSE, Vol. 135, pp. 150–166). The IOP Inversion Model for Inland Waters (IIMIW) is specifically developed for turbid lake, estuarine, and coastal waters. Validated and works well for 8 sites all over the world.

23. Chlorophyll (mg/m 3 ) DateLabInversed Jul 15~2.12.47 Jul 27~2.21.88 Here we show the inversion results for dock test on July 15 and July 27. The interesting fact is that inversed results are always better when using WISP-measured R rs (λ). This may suggest WISP Rrs is more accurate than the other two instruments. However, it is not certain until further investigation. Measuring Rrs with more than one instruments, if possible, is still recommended. Inversion Application Example R rs (λ) a nw (λ), b bp (λ) Pigments

24. CLOSURE ANALYSIS

25. Differences between instruments’ response could be explained by: Offsets between sensors, Spatial variations during deployment, Not accurate information about atmospheric conditions and sea level state, Inappropriate angle corrections, Handling errors (especially for WISP), … Incorrect values of sea- surface reflectance factor, ρ Due to the lack of more information, some of the corrections we can perform are only assumptions and we can’t justify them. Hydrolight model provides a very useful tool which can be used for this purpose.

26. CRUISE 2- “OFFSHORE” STATION HyperPRO, noisy and useless signal

27. ECOLIGHT SIMULATIONS: Simulations under different cloud coverage and wind speeds Inputs: IOPs (a P,b b,a CDOM ) 16% 10%

28. Same shape between spectra, different magnitude. 1) The measured Rrs at [720-750] significantly higher than zero  open ocean  “dark pixel” correction 2) Imprecise sky and measurement conditions, unknown  try with another rho values

29. Mobley (1999) ρ≈0.034 when φ ≈ 135º, θ ≈43º and U=5 m/s EUCLIDEAN DISTANCE Without corrections0.0076 Forcing Rrs [720-750] = 08.05E-04 Sea-surface reflectance factor= 0.034 0.0014.

30. CRUISE 2- RIVER STATION Full overcast (no “dark pixel” corrections nor change of sea-surface reflectance factor). EUCL. DISTANCE HyperSASHyperPROWISPEcolight HyperSAS00.01380.01340.0215 HyperPRO0.013800.0270.008 WISP0.01340.02700.0346 Ecolight0.02150.0080.03460

31. Lab/ Dock test using the Ed sensors under the same light conditions  Ed PRO = 1.1Ed SAS Euclidean_dist [Ecolight-HyperPRO]= 0.0036

32. THANK YOU!

34. Contact information If you have questions about the video, animation, or this PPT, please contact any of us. Erin Black: eblack@whoi.edu Jing Tan: tan30@purdue.edu Jing Tao: jing.tao@dal.ca Linhai Li: lil032@ucsd.edu Marta Ramrez Perez: mramirez@icm.csic.es